Project Title: Research into
Safety Audit in Small
Construction Co. in Hong Kong
Supervised by Dr. John HO
Presented by Cecilia Fung
BACKGROUND
• the last governor commented the construction safety as
deplorable in 1992 (Lam & Rowlinson 1997)
• the related public sectors made solutions mainly
– Performance Auditing Scoring System (PASS) for
Housing Department
– site monitoring system for Building Department
– pay-for-safety Scheme for Works Branch
• construction accidents still ranked at top over the past 5-yr.
from 1993-1997
IMPORTANCE OF SAFETY AUDIT
• Belief: Safety Audit to review performance as a final step
in H&S management control cycle can achieve success in
H&S (HSE 1993)
• Availability:
– Construction CHASE
– International Safety Rating System
– 5-star Health and Safety Management System
– SMA-CON
– Independent Safety Audit System
LIMITATION OF SAFETY AUDIT
• May fail if:
– inadequate or non-existent system of audit
– the safety audit cannot identify the inadequacy
– the safety audit gives a wrong indication of pass score
– companies aim only at improving score rather than
revealing improvement in safety (Booth 1997)
AIM:
To evaluate the effectiveness of
the safety audit as a final step to
review performance in Health &
Safety Management cycle in
construction industry
OBJECTIVES:
• O1: To investigate how safety audit (ISAS) reflects the safety
performance of small construction Co.
• O2: To identify the cause of problems and develop some control
points to eliminate the problems
• O3: To develop a safety performance critical control Point Model to
identify essential elements for safety audit
• O4: To illustrate the operation and function of the model as a sliding
scale in the safety audit
• O5: To compare and evaluate the performance indicators of the
proposed model and existing system as a final step to review H&S
performance
Project
Objectives
Approach/methods/
tools
survey
O1
Interview with PM/
Expert
Literature review
O2
Sampling and analyzing
by ANOVA
Outcomes
To define the problem nature
and common
misunderstanding of the
safety audit in the existing
system
To identify the relationship of
safety score and weighing factor
as well as the problem area in
selecting performance indicator safety elements in safety audit
Project
Objectives
O3
Approach/methods/
tools
HACCP
Sampling for testing
HACCP with different
weighing factors
O4
System design
Outcomes
a safety performance critical
control Point Model to identify
essential elements for safety audit
a sliding scale for the safety
audit to improve H&S
performance
Example for testing
O5
Result evaluation
software
KNOWLEDGE IMPORTANT TO
COMPLETE THE PROJECT
• To understand the working principles of the ISAS in
construction industry
• To review the performance indicator for the H&S
researched by predecessor
• To familiar with the working principle and philosophy of
the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
as advocated by the USA in 1973 to apply a nil-defect
programme to the production of food for astronauts.
HACCP Decision Tree
Q1
Do Preventative control measures exist?
No
Modify steps in the process or work procedure
Yes
Is control at this step necessary for safety?
No
Q2
Yes
Not a CCP
stop
Is the step specifically designed to eliminate or reduce the
likely occurrence of a hazard of an acceptable level?
yes
No
Q3
Could the identified hazard(s) occur in excess of acceptable
level(s) or could these increase to unacceptable level?
Yes
Q4
No
Not a CCP
Will a subsequent step eliminate identified hazard(s) or
reduce likely occurrence to acceptable level(s)?
Yes
Not a CCP
No
Stop
Stop
Critical Control Point
(CCP)
ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS INCLUDE
• survey with insufficient number of small
construction cos. to voluntarily participate the
research
• samples may be affected by inteventing variables
such as time, types and size of the target samples
• system design heavily relied on the software
development
• the feasibility of HACCP into the field of H&S of
construction industry
CHANCE OF SUCCESS
• There may be some chances of success as reviewed at the
pilot study carried in November 1999
• 3 small construction cos. building 1 to 3 40-storey
residential buildings under the Housing Department
contract showed some encouraging results:
– the pass score in the ISAS does not guarantee continuous H&S
improvement over the past one-year audit report
– the HACCP seems to be applicable in devising critical control
point for H&S performance indicator for safety audit
Quarterly Safety Score
Figure 2a: Individual Safety Score Vs Safety Performance Indicator II
(by HACCP) at Site I
120
100
1st Quarter
80
2nd Quarter
60
3rd Quarter
40
4th Quarter
20
0
safety training
job hazard analysis
emergency
preparedness
health assurance
programme
Safety Performance Indicator
processcontrol
programme
Quarterly Safety Score
Figure 2b: Individual Safety Score Vs Safety Performance Indicator II
(by HACCP) at Site 2
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
safety training
job hazard analysis
emergency
preparedness
health assurance
programme
Safety Performance Indicator
processcontrol
programme
Figure 2c: Individual Safety Score Vs Safety Performance Indicator II
(by HACCP) at Site 3
Quaterly Safety Score
120
100
80
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
60
40
20
0
safety training
job hazard analysis
emergency
preparedness
health assurance
programme
Safety Performance Indicator
processcontrol
programme
EXPECTED OUTCOME
Existing system
SE1
SE2
SE3
SE3
SE12
SE13
SE14
SE1
The 14
safety
elements
are in
parallel
same
weighing
factor
when
average
the
average
score for
a passing
grade
Proposed
model
SE3
SE2
SE4
SE5
SE6
SE7
SE8
SE9
SE10
SE11
SE13
SE12
SE14
THANK YOU!
Questions & Answers
Session